County Planning

ORS 215.274
Associated transmission lines necessary for public service

  • criteria
  • mitigating impact of facility


(1)

As used in this section, “associated transmission line” has the meaning given that term in ORS 469.300 (Definitions).

(2)

An associated transmission line is necessary for public service if an applicant for approval under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(c)(B) or 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(c)(B) demonstrates to the governing body of a county or its designee that the associated transmission line meets:

(a)

At least one of the requirements listed in subsection (3) of this section; or

(b)

The requirements described in subsection (4) of this section.

(3)

The governing body of a county or its designee shall approve an application under this section if an applicant demonstrates that the entire route of the associated transmission line meets at least one of the following requirements:

(a)

The associated transmission line is not located on high-value farmland, as defined in ORS 195.300 (Definitions for ORS 195.300 to 195.336), or on arable land;

(b)

The associated transmission line is co-located with an existing transmission line;

(c)

The associated transmission line parallels an existing transmission line corridor with the minimum separation necessary for safety; or

(d)

The associated transmission line is located within an existing right of way for a linear facility, such as a transmission line, road or railroad, that is located above the surface of the ground.

(4)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the governing body of a county or its designee shall approve an application under this section if, after an evaluation of reasonable alternatives, the applicant demonstrates that the entire route of the associated transmission line meets, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, two or more of the following factors:

(A)

Technical and engineering feasibility;

(B)

The associated transmission line is locationally dependent because the associated transmission line must cross high-value farmland, as defined in ORS 195.300 (Definitions for ORS 195.300 to 195.336), or arable land to achieve a reasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands;

(C)

Lack of an available existing right of way for a linear facility, such as a transmission line, road or railroad, that is located above the surface of the ground;

(D)

Public health and safety; or

(E)

Other requirements of state or federal agencies.

(b)

The applicant shall present findings to the governing body of the county or its designee on how the applicant will mitigate and minimize the impacts, if any, of the associated transmission line on surrounding lands devoted to farm use in order to prevent a significant change in accepted farm practices or a significant increase in the cost of farm practices on the surrounding farmland.

(c)

The governing body of a county or its designee may consider costs associated with any of the factors listed in paragraph (a) of this subsection, but consideration of cost may not be the only consideration in determining whether the associated transmission line is necessary for public service. [2013 c.242 §2]
Note: 215.274 (Associated transmission lines necessary for public service) was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 215 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
§§ 215.203 to 215.311

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Effect of constitutional provision requiring payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if property owners can reasonably ascertain that property in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory scheme establishing LCDC and granting it authority to establish state-wide land use planning goals does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power where both standards (under this chapter) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain portions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., application to county governing bodies and planning commissions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on governmental agencies of the adoption of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Citations

36 EL 25 (2006)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021